Maria Sharapova tests positive for banned substance

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
Maria took full responsibility ... unlike most in this situation, she didn't hide behind some obvious lie, nor duck the issue.

Personally, I wish more athlete's were this accountable ...

And let's not suddenly ignore her PLENTY charitable endeavors/donations, proving one of the more giving athlete's.

Maria deserves better than above.

Maria deserves no more than she has earned.

I prefer athletes who have nothing for which to be acountable. If she is telling the truth then file for the retroactive certification.
That would get her suspension lifted and sponsorships reinstated.
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
Sharapova gets a two year suspension. Her use of banned substance was deemed "unintentional."
I am not sure what unintentional means.
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Sharapova gets a two year suspension. Her use of banned substance was deemed "unintentional."
I am not sure what unintentional means.

lol

:D
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
Last edited:

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
Ignorance of the rule is no defense. There is no requirement that the person intends to break the rule. A person is presumed to intend all the natural consequences of the the acf. Banned substance rules constitute strict liability. A positive test is all that is all that is required.
 

blutto

New Member
Mar 22, 2014
21
0
0
Ignorance of the rule is no defense. There is no requirement that the person intends to break the rule. A person is presumed to intend all the natural consequences of the the acf. Banned substance rules constitute strict liability. A positive test is all that is all that is required.

....a big problem here is that WADA really botched their study on how long the drug would stay in the system...read, they really have no firm idea...so conceivably Sharapova could have stopped taking the drug as required by WADA but the drug stayed in the system longer than originally thought ( so could well have been following the letter of the law but was brought down by a badly defined law )....of course WADA like many institutions has been loath to admit to its botched study and went ahead with its high profile takedown, I mean its good for their business model ( and besides this plays nicely into the anti-Russian sentiment that is prevalent in much of Western media over the last few years...)...

...as Operation Puerto ( and the Armstrong saga ) showed drug takedowns are often very selective and politically/economically motivated ( read, the majority of the revealed names were cyclists whereas the majority of the athletes caught, including many prominent soccer and tennis players, were never revealed...)...the reality is drugs in sport is dirty business and the detection side of that business is not as clean as it should be in theory ( US track over the last few decades being a good example )...

Cheers
 
Last edited:

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
Orb are you not forgetting Maria confessed?
Certainly new use requires a baseline. Her defense remains, medical necessity. She has yet to pursue that option
I can't prove it but this is supposedly a cheater drug.
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
Ignorance of the rule is no defense. There is no requirement that the person intends to break the rule. A person is presumed to intend all the natural consequences of the the acf. Banned substance rules constitute strict liability. A positive test is all that is all that is required.

But because she is tall, pretty and talented they should have given her a break and just a simple fine...$5 million. :b
It's not like she's a bad girl. I know some who are much worst and they don't get banned. ...Just saying from an equitable perspective.
And who knows...some laws in sports are not exactly healthy either for the athletes.

Anyway, in life as in sports, you play fair game with your comrades of esteem and respect and good example.
Maybe less than 1% of all athletes adhere to those values of true sportsmanship? Did you check the latest in Russia and with their athletes from various divisions?
But Russia is not alone. It's happening everywhere...it's just that Russia is big in the spotlight nowadays on the subject of doping and their athletes.
Usually I would provide a direct link, but I'll stay with our tall blonde girl and her latest two-year ban. * My Mom is a huge tennis fan...men.
 

blutto

New Member
Mar 22, 2014
21
0
0
Orb are you not forgetting Maria confessed?
Certainly new use requires a baseline. Her defense remains, medical necessity. She has yet to pursue that option
I can't prove it but this is supposedly a cheater drug.

....of course she confessed to getting a positive but she has also said she did not take the drug after the date it was banned....the issue now is how and why the positive finding....the following from a recent NYT article throws some light of the bigger picture...


Maria Sharapova has been cleared of intentionally cheating by an International Tennis Federation tribunal, but she and her advisers have hardly emerged unscathed

....and ....

Meldonium would very likely not be on that list yet if the World Anti-Doping Agency had taken the time and care it should have to determine how long meldonium can remain in an athlete’s system and to further analyze its true performance-enhancing effects.

...and from an earlier ABCC/Reuters article on the matter...

Athletes who tested positive for meldonium before March 1 could have bans overturned less than four months before the Rio Olympics after WADA said it could not establish how quickly the drug cleared the human body.

Meldonium's Latvian manufacturer has said traces could remain in the body for several months depending on doses, duration of treatment and sensitivity of testing methods.

The anti-doping body's notice also gave hope to athletes who have tested positive for the drug since March 1, depending on studies being carried out to determine how long it stays in the body.

"Since meldonium was prohibited on 1 January of this year, there have been 172 positive samples for the substance, for athletes across numerous countries and sports," WADA President Craig Reedie said.

"Concurrently there has been a call by stakeholders for further clarification and guidance," he said.

"WADA recognises this need - that meldonium is a particular substance, which has created an unprecedented situation and therefore warranted additional guidance for the anti-doping community."

The fact that WADA felt compelled to issue this unusual statement now is proof of how poorly they handled issues relating to meldonium in 2015," Haggerty said in a statement.

"Given the fact that scores of athletes have tested positive for taking what previously was a legal product, it's clear WADA did not handle this properly last year and they're trying to make up for it now."

....read, this issue is not really that clear cut as the drug could have still been in an athlete's system long after they had correctly and diligently followed the new protocol and stopped using it as required by the new regulations....and these cases are being made even more difficult as there a lot of different interests rushing about trying to cover their respective butts because mistakes have been made by just about everyone associated with this mess...

Cheers
 
Last edited:

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
Thanks ? for illuminating us with those very important pieces of information.
I'll be doing more research into this affair as I believe now that she was wrongfully banned. I think this is not over...
_______

R.I.P. all Orlando victims, and my prayers to all the families and friends of the deceased and injured.
 
Last edited:

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
I don't recall her denying new use. Establishing a baseline is standard practice for establishing new use. Testing positive is usually followed by further tests. Normally one would expect abstinence to show a decline in levels. New use would show a significant incrrase.
It's all her fault for ignoing notice not only that the drug was illegal but was going to become illegal.
She has still not explained why she has not sought the retroactive medical exemprion.
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
I suppose it is appropriate to point out I have litigated these issues.
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
And...did you reach your final verdict? ...Do you agree or disagree with the imposed two-year ban after all circumstantial evidence presented?
 
Last edited:

blutto

New Member
Mar 22, 2014
21
0
0
I don't recall her denying new use. Establishing a baseline is standard practice for establishing new use. Testing positive is usually followed by further tests. Normally one would expect abstinence to show a decline in levels. New use would show a significant incrrase.
It's all her fault for ignoing notice not only that the drug was illegal but was going to become illegal.
She has still not explained why she has not sought the retroactive medical exemprion.

....I assume you mean retroactive TUE ?....soooo....haven't litigated in that area but have experience with the TUE idea ( along with several colleagues...most experience was good/successful ...some not so good and it did in fact involve retroactive TUE's )...

...find below a quote from the USADA that pertains to retroactive TUE's....

An application for a TUE will only be considered for retroactive approval where:

a. Emergency treatment or treatment of an acute medical condition was necessary; or

b. Due to other exceptional circumstances, there was insufficient time or opportunity for the Athlete to submit, or for the TUEC to consider, an application for the TUE prior to Sample collection; or

c. It is agreed, by WADA and by the Anti-Doping Organization to whom the application for a retroactive TUE is or would be made, that fairness requires the grant of a retroactive TUE.
...so the question is....where does Sharapova fit in here ?....and please don't say the fairness clause because everybody knows this was a politically motivated hack job and fairness was the first thing thrown out the window...and Sharapova's people are probably smart enough to know that would be a complete waste of time...their best shot is playing off the botched WADA study...

Cheers
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
No I have not reached a final verdict. A medical exemption is an affirmative defense (burden of proof shifts to defendant).
If she has told the truth 2 years is fine.
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
Based on her history her problem appears to be chronic rather than acute. However given the timing of the ban and the Austrailian Open it may have been unfair to expect Maria to make Sohies choice of deferring the medication or withdrawing from the tournament.
Applying for the exemption would be a demonstration of candor.
To be perfectly honest I also doubt she would qualify for the exemption. But for different treasons.
 

NorthStar

Member
Feb 8, 2011
24,305
1,323
435
Vancouver Island, B.C. Canada
The latest (just few hours ago): http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/36531436
________

 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
She might fall under part b with the coincidence of the ban and commencement of the tournament.
 

blutto

New Member
Mar 22, 2014
21
0
0
The latest (just few hours ago): http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/36531436
________


....just looked over the article above and appears I was dead wrong about some key issues in this case....my understanding had been she had stopped taking the drug when the new protocol kicked in.....if anybody has any experience cleaning egg off face would be grateful for any tips...and apologies for the bother I created and the wasted bandwidth...

Cheers
 
Last edited:

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
Orb good points raised nonetheless.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing